Skip to main content

About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
story. this is backlash on capitol hill. this is criticism of the u.n. ambassador susan rice. it is now heating up as she meets with more republicans and faces more questions. we're going to have a live report up next. [ male announcer ] where do you turn for legal matters? maybe you want to incorporate a business. or protect your family with a will or living trust. and you'd like the help of an attorney. at legalzoom a legal plan attorney is available in most states with every personalized document to answer questions. get started at legalzoom.com today. and now you're protected. i'm going to dream about that steak. i'm going to dream about that tiramisu. what a night, huh? but, um, can the test drive be over now? head back to the dealership? [ male announcer ] it's practically yours. but we still need your signature. volkswagen sign then drive is back. and it's never been easier to get a passat. that's the power of german engineering. get $0 down, $0 due at signing, $0 deposit, and $0 first month's payment on any new volkswagen. visit vwdealer.com today. part of a whole new line of ta
. >> that leads us now to susan rice, the u.s. ambassador to the united nations who went on national television and said this attack in benghazi, libya, was probably because of this anti-muslim film. >> reporter: exactly. >> she had talking points, right? where did those talking points come from? did they come from petraeus and the cia, were they edited later by the white house, do we know? >> reporter: we don't know. you heard peter king was asked that specific question. according to him and some others, we still don't know exactly where the disconnect was, if you will, between what the intelligence community now says that they believed at the time and the talking points that ended up with susan rice that ended up on television that sunday afterwards. it still doesn't seem to be very clear. the reason why he is now the former cia director is because of the affair that david petraeus had. he resigned one week ago. the question is whether or not that would come up at all. he said it was addressed at the beginning and he regretted what happened and that they didn't really address it at all after
. the woman at center of the firestorm facing more questions. today u.n. ambassador to the u.s. susan rice met with republican senators who harshly criticized her initial ex-plan nation about the attack that killed four americans including ambassador chris stevens. what senator lindsey graham said after the meeting. >> bottom line, i'm more disturbed now than i was before, that the 16th september explanation about how four americans died in benghazi, libya, by ambassador rice, i think, does not do justice to the reality at the time and in hindsight clearly was completely wrong. >> dana bash following developments on capitol hill. before susan rice went before these republicans, senators, they seemed to be backing away from criticizing her. now it looks like in speaking with them, this is backfired. can you tell us what happened? >> reporter: that's right. i was told by a source familiar with this meeting that the reason why the senators backed off public comments, softened them, they did, susan rice requested a meeting and felt that was the most appropriate thing to do not keep pounding her be
controversial coming out of these briefings, whether or not susan rice, the u.n. ambassador -- the u.s. ambassador to the u.n., had the proper information or was correct in what she said publicly about the attack being probably at that point four days after the attack because of a demonstration. democrats are really to a person coming to her defense aggressively and trying to explain why there was a discrepancy. listen to kent conrad of the democratic member of the senate health care community. >> what is very clear is that ambassador rice used the talking points that the intelligence committee had all signed off on. that is very, very clear. she used the unclassified talking points that were signed off on by the entire intelligence community, so criticisms of her are completely unwarranted. that is very clear. >> and susan, dianne feinstein, just moments ago actually took out and read the unclassified talking points that susan rice used on that day, and they were very short. it sounds like there were two, maybe three points in the talking points, and it was almost certain to change.
goxarelto.com. >>> susan rice is fighting back. she's been the target over her comments. senator john mccain and other lawmakers have been bashing her. now rice is saying no words in defending herself. what is rice saying? >> reporter: i wouldn't say she is bringing in new information. it's really what this administration has been saying from multiple sources. john mccain and some of the other republicans are accusing her of lying and misleading the american public and the congress. she says she was given talking points that were preparing by the intelligence committee. now on the personal comments by john mccain, she is politely diplomatically firing back at him. >> when discussing the attacks at our facilities i relied solely and squarely on the information provided to me by the intelligence community. i made clear that the information was preliminary and that our investigations would give us the definitive answers. everyone particularly the intelligence community has worked in good faith to provide the best assessment based on the information available. >> reporter: she hopes when the
to the u.n. susan rice had very different reactions to the decision. >> translator: we came to a firm legitimacy of the state that must now achieve its independence and that is palestine. >> we have always been clear that only through direct negotiations between the parties can the palestinians and israelis achieve the peace that both deserve. >> palestinians view the u.n. vote as a big step toward eventual statehood. hours before the u.n. general assembly vote, u.n. put out a statement on its official twitter account. we all do that but theirs had a glaring typo. this says, quote, on day of solidarity with palestinians, ban ki moon stresses urgency of reaching a one-state solution. oops. it's actually a two-state solution. the mistake was acknowledged and corrected about half an hour later. >>> state of same-sex marriage before supreme court. actor morgan freedom. >> now across our country, we are standing together for the right of gay and lesbian americans to marry the person they love. >> today the highest court might decide whether to take up the case about same-sex marriage and j
he's a big fan of ambassador susan rice -- does he have confidence she could pass a national confirmation for any post in a future cabinet? >> i will not engage in speculation of personnel matters. the president believes secretary rice has done an excellent job and is grateful for his service. >> this investigation has been going on for month. how is it that the white house didn't have any idea of this until the day after the election and congress a few days later? >> i refer you to the fbi. they have as i understand it, protocols in place for when they notify the legislative and executive branchs of the investigations. and you know, it is simply a fact that the white house was not aware of the situation regarding general patreaus until wednesday and the situation regarding general allen until friday. so, you know, the fbi's a place to guy in terms of explanation of the protocols they follow. i understand that is the answer that they will give, that there are protocols they follow that govern how they inform the various branchs of government of the investigations. >> do you t
on september 14th was general petraeus saying it was not a terrorist attack. why did susan rice carry that out. the president can't have it both ways. >> hmm. well, the bitter back and forth continues. the house intelligence committee is holding a closed door hearing on the attack that killed u.s. ambassador chris stevens and three other americans. more on the fallout from the libya attack. want to bring in dana bash, and, dana, you have been watching, staking outle intelligence committee hearing. there is reports i guess that there might be a videotape or something. do we know that there is a tape, surveillance tape, that exists of the attack? do we know that? >> well, this comes from our national security correspondent, suzanne, kelly who is reporting that what is going on behind those closed doors. it'seen going, on this t intelligence officials brought with them closed-circumstance yult video which from the compound that was recovered from the compound that, of course, was attacked in benghazi, and they're playing it for these lawmakers and the point, according to suzanne's sources, is to
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)